Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

NB. Any advice about HIV is given in addition to your own medical advice and not intended to replace it. You should never make clinical decisions based on what anyone says on the internet but rather check with your ID doctor first. Discussions from the internet are just that - Discussions. They may give you food for thought, but they should not direct you to do anything but fuel discussion.

NB. Any advice about HIV is given in addition to your own medical advice and not intended to replace it. You should never make clinical decisions based on what anyone says on the internet but rather check with your ID doctor first. Discussions from the internet are just that - Discussions. They may give you food for thought, but they should not direct you to do anything but fuel discussion.

ChristianArmy of God Freedomites (1902-present) Active in Canada, notable for their longevity Nagaland Rebels (1947-present) Active in predominantly Christian state in Hindu majority India. Involved in several bombings in 2004. Goal: Independence from India after annexing parts of neighboring Indian states and Burma if it has Christian majority. National Liberation Front of Tripura (1989-present) A group that seeks the independence of Tripura from India to create a Christian Tripura. Lord's Resistance Army Christian/Pagan/Muslim terrorist group that operates in northern Uganda, it seeks to overthrow the Ugandan government and create a country based on the ten commandments.[16] God's Army A terrorist group in Myanmar. [JewishKach and Kahane Chai - [17] Gush Emunim Underground: (1979-1984) [citation needed] Jewish Defense League - designated by US FBI [18] Irgun: (1931-1948) [citation needed] Lehi: (1940-1948) [citation needed]

SikhBabbar Khalsa Bhinderanwala Tiger Force of Khalistan International Sikh Youth Federation [19] Khalistan Zindabad Force [20] Saheed Khalsa Force Khalistan Liberation Force Khalistan Commando Force Khalistan Liberation Front Khalistan National Army Dashmesh Regiment All of these groups demand a Khalistan (Land of the Pure) in the Indian state of Punjab and adjoining areas for Sikhs. Most have a variable amount of support from Sikhs abroad and have been in existence since the 1980s. Many have been weakened and have cut down on activities, yet they continue. The militancy in Punjab has claimed approximately 100,000 lives, according to estimates put forward by Amnesty International: this figure involves killings by both Sikh militants and the Indian forces. With the exception of the first two, the other groups have only been proscribed in India.

Irish Nationalists (Northern Ireland)Irish Republican Army (1922-1969)split into- 'Official IRA' and 'Provisional IRA'. Official IRA (defunct) Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) (1969–2002) [8] Supporters of the PIRA split from 'Official' Sinn Féin to form Provisional Sinn Féin. Provisional Sinn Féin was later known simply as Sinn Féin (while 'Official' Sinn Féin eventually became the Workers' Party). Under ceasefire since the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 Ended armed campaign in September 2005. Splinter groups: Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) (1986-present) Also known as the "Continuity Army Council" and "Óglaigh na hÉireann" (Gaelic for 'Volunteers of Ireland') Real Irish Republican Army (RIRA) (1997-present)* Also known as the True IRA and Óglaigh na hÉireann (Gaelic for Volunteers of Ireland). Does not recognize Good Friday Agreement. Irish National Liberation Army (1974-present) Splinter group: Irish People's Liberation Organisation (1986-1992, defunct)

India

Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (Amanullah Khan) -- (Note: The JKLF faction headed by Yasin Malik has renounced all violence since 1995) Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) -- Banned by Indian Government in 2002. Recently, it has been accused of helping Pakistani based terrorists organization organize bomb blasts in Mumbai, India.

[edit]

Northern Irish Loyalists (Northern Ireland)Ulster Defence Association (UDA) (1971-present)** Also called the "Ulster Freedom Fighters," or UFF. On February 22, 2003, announced a "complete and utter cessation" of all acts of violence for one year. It said it will review its ceasefire every three months, although in February 2006, the Independent Monitoring Commission reported that the UDA continued its paramilitary activities, as well as involvement in organized crime, drug trafficking, counterfeiting, extortion, money laundering and robbery Splinter group: Red Hand Defenders (1998-present)** UDA splinter group. Opposes ceasefire. Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) (May 1966-present) Very closely linked with the Red Hand Commandos (1972-present). Loyalist Volunteer Force (1996-2005) Orange Volunteers (1998-present) Red Branch Knights (1992)

PalestineMain article: Palestinian political violenceHamas Abu Nidal Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades Baloch Mujahideen [citation needed] Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Irgun (1931-1948) - regarded as a terrorist group by the British authorities and the mainstream Zionist organizations. Lehi (1940-1948) - regarded as a terrorist group by the British authorities. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) Palestine Liberation Front Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (until 1988) - On December 14, 1988, the PLO renounced the use of terrorist tactics, and as of 2006, the PLO is no longer considered a terrorist organization by the U.S., the U.N., or Israel

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, aka Tamil Tigers)- Sri Lanka. One of the largest groups with an estimated 24,000 Tamil cadres who fight for separation from Sri Lanka. The group has carried out 240+ suicide bombings since the early 80s in the process which they describe as their freedom struggle. Members of the group were convicted for the suicide bomber assassinations of Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa (1988-1993) and former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi [21]. UNHCR has reported that this organisation recruits under-aged children by force. TamilEela Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal LTTE splinter group led by one Karuna Amman and allegedly proped up by the government. Currently under consideration by the EU to be banned as a terrorist organisation.

Army for the Liberation of Rwanda - Rwanda (Hutu emancipatory;genocidal) Aryan Nations - United States Black Panthers - United States Boeremag - South Africa Combat 18 - United Kingdom Column 88 - United Kingdom CSA Creativity Movement - USA Ku Klux Klan - USA (founded in 1865 and revived several times since). A tiny British KKK also came into being recently.[citation needed] Mouvement d'Action et Défense Masada - France (disbanded). This was a French neo-Nazi organization, disguised as a Zionist extremist group, which attacked Arab targets. National Socialist Movement - United Kingdom The Order - USA (disbanded) White Aryan Resistance - United States

These groups are active on environmental issues, using sabotage (monkeywrenching) as their means of struggle. They have a commitment for property damage only, and not harming life (human or animal).

Animal Liberation Front (ALF) - UK and US. Property damage and animal release, related to animal rights issues. Listed as one of the top domestic threats by United States Department of Homeland Security, FBI and ATF. Earth Liberation Front - Founded 1992; operates in US, Canada, and UK. Property destruction, related to environmental issues. Listed as one of the top domestic threats by United States Department of Homeland Security, FBI and ATF. It is to be noted that PETA has lent financial support to both ALF and ELF arrestees, in the way of paying for legal fees. Environmental Life Force - Disbanded in 1972. Used explosive and incendiary devices in defense of the environment.

Please dont post anything from wackypedia unless for purposes of humor. It is not a source of facts. Anyone can post anything there. Of course when I posted this I didnt realize we would be going back to the beginning of time, I was making a statement about the terrorists who are trying to kill us at this point in time. You all are so anal(not a pun).Is it true the unabomber was reading "earth in the balance" when he was captured or is that urban myth? Maybe I should checkk wackykpedia

Besides that it is proven in studies of the very high respected "Nature Journal", that the facts in Wikipedia have about the same level of accuracy (SEE LINKS BELOW) as standardlexikas like Brockhaus or Britannica, your rightwing comments ( I remember you calling a country barbars) need to be taken with a good level of humour.

If I didn't, I would need to get really angry about so much nonsense.

By the way: In the University where I teach Wikipedia is a very powerful tool with high accuracy and often used. It's not perfect but neither is any other encyclopedia.

This thread alone is prove enough that your view of the world is very, very narrow minded.....

And the list is accurate and if you check on your sources you'll find many non-muslim terror groups....

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. I disagree with the notion, (from the list Darkfiber supplied), that the ANC, (now the ruling party in a finally-democratic South Africa), was a terrorist organization and somehow the white-minority, racist, oppressive government, (which BTW was responsible for far more deaths and pain/suffering than the ANC and other anti-apartheid organizations combined), isn't even mentioned.

You'd be surprised how quickly you too would pick up a gun when forced to live under a repressive regime, where you have no rights, no hope and no future.

DarkFiber, Leftwing,righwing, what the heck. If you are using Wakypedia as a source for anything it's pure laziness if nothing else. anyone can post anything there as fact and it stands. It is a joke and I hope you arent teaching any of my kids using it as source of knowledge or fact.Is it not a fact that the people attacking the US now are muslims?

Cliff: The facile and oft-repeated statement 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' reflects genuine doubts about the term. In the past there have been strong disagreements about whether certain movements were or were not terrorist: for example, the Jewish extremist group Irgun in Palestine in the 1940s, the Viet Cong in South Vietnam from the late 1950s to the mid-1970s, and the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland from the late 1960s onwards. Famously, in 1987-8 the UK and US governments labelled the African National Congress of South Africa 'terrorist': a questionable attribution even at the time not because there had been no violence, but because the ANC's use of violence had been discriminate and had constituted only a small part of the ANC's overall strategy.

The new face of terrorism as mass murder is significantly changing such debates. The extremism of the September 11 attacks has led to a strong international reaction. As a result, none of the 189 member states of the UN opposed the USA's right to take military action in Afghanistan after the events of September 11, and none has offered explicit support for Al-Qaida. While there remain numerous concerns about the direction of the US and international moves against terrorism, and it is too early to say that the new face of terrorism is on the retreat, it is not too early to hazard the guess that, by engaging in crimes against humanity, the new face of terrorism may have contributed to its own eventual demise.

The defintion of terrorism

Since there are common factors, it ought to be possible to define terrorism. In the 1960s the UN General Assembly embarked on an attempt to do this. Initially little progress was made, partly because many states were reluctant to go far along the road of outlawing terrorism unless at the same time the 'causes of terrorism' were addressed. Other states saw this approach as implying that terrorism was a response to real grievances, and thereby insinuating that it was justified.

Thus the main emphasis at the UN was on limited practical measures. In a series of 12 international conventions drawn up between 1963 and 1999, particular terrorist actions, such as aircraft hijacking and diplomatic hostage-taking, were prohibited. As the 1990s progressed, and concern about terrorism increased, the UN General Assembly embarked on discussions about defining and outlawing terrorism generally. Its Legal Committee issued a rough draft of a convention, which:

Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be used to justify them.

'Is it reliance on terror that truly distinguishes a movement from its political opponents?'

There are still disagreements between states about this draft convention. Even if it is eventually agreed, there is a difference between agreement on the general principle of outlawing terrorism and its application to particular facts. The labelling of individuals and movements as 'terrorist' will remain complicated and highly political. Two key questions arise: (1) Is it reliance on terror that truly distinguishes a movement from its political opponents? (2) Even if parts of a movement have employed terrorist methods, is 'terrorist' an accurate description of the movement as a whole, made up of many different wings, and employing many different modes of action?

Professor Adam Roberts is a

Now: An organisation that started as an organisation with terroristic action very well can move to a perfectly legitimate organisation (such as the ANC). The reason for becoming a terroristic organisation are always hard to define as right or wrong. The actionsto harm, sometimes innocent people, however is always wrong in my opinion. Hamas in many eyes is an terroristic organisations in other eyes it is a legitimate elected party...

Jack

Don't be afraid about your kids, I am in Switzerland and have no plans coming to the US, eventhough our University is working closely with Harvard....

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

What I don't understand is everyone inability to accept the fact that the people who want to kill us are radical muslims. All Muslims aren't terrorists, but all the terrorists that want kill us at this point in time are muslim. What is racist about that or xenophobic for that matter? It is a true statement, it is a fact, I don't care what wakypedia says. Wakypedia is based on Napoleons definitions of history,"something is history if you can find two people to agree on it"I don't hate anyone because of their race, origin, beliefs, or religion and I am insulted that anyone would interpret the fact that "the terrorists that want to kill us at this point in time are all Muslim" as such. It is not attack on Muslims only a statement of fact.

What I don't understand is everyone inability to accept the fact that the people who want to kill us are radical muslims. All Muslims aren't terrorists, but all the terrorists that want kill us at this point in time are muslim. What is racist about that or xenophobic for that matter? It is a true statement, it is a fact, I don't care what wakypedia says. Wakypedia is based on Napoleons definitions of history,"something is history if you can find two people to agree on it"I don't hate anyone because of their race, origin, beliefs, or religion and I am insulted that anyone would interpret the fact that "the terrorists that want to kill us at this point in time are all Muslim" as such. It is not attack on Muslims only a statement of fact.

Sorry Jake...opinions are different than facts. It is a fact that some terrorist profess to be Muslim...it also a fact that some Klan members profess to be Christian. Based on your twisted logic...all Christians are Klan members.

Not that i support Jake AT ALL.. In fact I am opposed to his view. HOWEVER Dasch, based on his twisted logic, wouldn't he be saying that all Klan members are Christian?

IE. All Christians aren't Klan members, but all Klan members are Christian?

Either way it's crazy talk. But I for one will probably pause a second or two longer on a plane with "Arab Looking" folk, even though I know in my MIND and my HEART it isn't right.

Logged

LIFE is not a race to the grave with the intention of arriving safelyin a pretty and well-preserved body, but, rather to skid in broadside,thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming--WOW! WHAT ARIDE!!!

How can you all not agree that the people, the terrorists, who are attacking us at this point in time are Muslim?Should I say the terrorists who are attacking us are not Muslim? I could, but it wouldn't be true. I read here day after day about Christians wanting to kill gays and Christians being evil and uneducated, and the same people get pissed when I say that the terrorists who attack us are Muslim? Yet in a Muslim society if you were gay, and found out, you would find yourself missing certain appendages if you were allowed to live at all.Do you think that the whole Terrorist thing is some conspiracy by Bush and Blair to stay in power and get rich?Why do you deny that people who are radical Muslims are in a war with our civilization? Do you think if you pretend it isn't so they will go away and we wont have to fight them?This attitude shouldn't surprise me. There was a large percentage of Americans prior to WWII who believed Nazi Germany was not a danger, most notably the US ambassador to GB, Joe Kennedy. Winny was warning people as early as 1932 yet no one listened till it was almost too late. The moment the Nazis were defeated,Winny was tossed out of office.There are still people who believe that Roosevelt ignored warnings of a Jape sneak attack on Pearl so we would have a reason to join the war.So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that some people don't believe the terrorists who are attacking us now are Muslims.

Profess to be Muslims. Many Muslims refute them as non-believers. No one is denying terrorism or endorsing appeasement...but you can't kill everyone Jake. You are off your rocker if think for one minute the policies of Bush/Cheney are not creating more terrorists than killing. Asama loves Bush...considers him a walkin',talkin', recruitment poster...his words not mine.

While you are at it Jake what would you have your buddies Cheney/Bush do with their friends the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, and Pakistanis? Are all Muslims fair game?

Yes. There is a large network of radical exremist Muslims who are trying to kill people all over the world.

Is that all you want?

They are Muslim only by their own forked tongues. They do not live the teachings of the Quran or the Prophet Mohammed, and there are hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who find their behaviour deplorable.

What I don't understand is everyone inability to accept the fact that the people who want to kill us are radical muslims.

Jack, that is NOT what you said at the beginning of this thread. You said "all the terrorists are Muslim." which is a sweeping, xenophobic statement.

The vast majority of Muslims around the world only want to live in peace and feed their families, just like you Jack. They rejoice in birth and grieve over death just like we do. They are human beings too. The minute you forget that, you lose your humanity.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

dachshund, i said nothing about bush or cheney. All I said was" all muslims aren't terrorists, but the terrorists(that attack us today,i added this some because some posters have gone back to the beginning of time) are all muslims. That does not mean that we kill all muslims. It is just a statement of fact.

Ademus, I want nothing. I have been attacked as a racist, a hater of muslims, wanting to kill all muslims for simply stating that that all muslims aren't terrorists,but all the terrorists are muslim.I was just trying to understand why some refuse to believe this. I think there is so much hate for Bush that many cant see what is the truth. There was an equal amount of hate for the last President and everything he did,even when it was good was looked upon as some type of conspiracy or bad thing.

It might be a good thing if more Muslims stood up and denounced the radical muslims who are terrorists.

Dear Ann, I said "ALL MUSLIMS ARENT TERRORISTS,BUT ALL THE TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIM". Of course this was meant to describe the terrorists that have been at war with us for 40 years.( since they killed RFK. Sirhan said he did it because RFK supported Israel.) I changed it because one poster using wakypedia as a source gave us a list of terrorists that might have included the boy scouts.The terrorists claim to be Muslims, don't they? What am I missing? My statement in no way says that all Muslims are terrorists, it says the exact opposite.

I have been attacked as a racist, a hater of muslims, wanting to kill all muslims for simply stating that that all muslims aren't terrorists,but all the terrorists are muslim.

Oh, give me a friggin' break. You start a thread in the Forums with this one-liner and you have the audacity to play the victim? Jack, the only reason somebody intentionally drops a single burning ember such as your doozy is to start a flame war.

Was there an intelligent point to be made here? No, there wasn't. You knew damn well that dropping a totally pointless statement such as this would immediately put you in the crosshairs, either because you get off on it or because you really have nothing better to do today.

What I find totally ironic is that you're the first one to challenge the generalizations made by others with respect to the current White House administration and right-leaning politics in this country. In fact, I -- and I'm sure others -- have undoubtedly learned a lot from you in this regard. But then you turn around and initiate a flame war in the Forums with this bunk? And then try to play the victim on top of it? I mean seriously, Jack... this is totally beneath you and your intelligence.

Sorry Tim. You do know that I love my liberal Friends,even though we don't agree on much. I love this MB. Yes, I expected some kind of response, don't we everytime we post? I have learned much more from my liberal friends here than they will ever know, and I respect their views even though I often disagree. I wish I could put my thoughts on paper as well as many here.I guess more than anything I am surprised at the support from this MB for an organized religion, I have never seen the same support for Christians or Christianity here, and I understand that. If there was an organized religion that my government supported that opposed a lifestyle that I was born in to, it should piss everyone off. Why are so many here so quick to support Muslims but condemn Christians? It makes no sense to be pissed at one religion for opposing your lifestyle yet defend the Muslim religion who also opposes not only the homosexual lifestyle but all lifestyles of civilized peoples.Tim, dont you think its unreal we don't even agree on who our enemy is? To me our enemy is radical Muslims, that's all I thought I was saying.

Now THAT was a post that undoubtedly came from your heart and your head and the intelligent questions raised will surely give everyone in here something truly substantive to think about... and respond to.

From where I stand, I don't see things in the Forums as being pro-Muslim and anti-Christian. What I do see -- and have seen since the beginning of the Forums -- are numerous people who support and defend secularization... something that IS being lost in the U.S.

You are absolutely right. Muslim extremists are a global threat, not only to United States citizens and residents, but to citizens of various European nations, Israel, and even other Arab countries. These extremists are driven by fundamentalism -- a movement to return national leadership and government to be driven solely by the defining principles of a given religion.

But fundamentalism certainly isn't a Muslim-only phenomenon. Fundamentalist christianity, without doubt, remains a major threat -- in the United States -- to the secular governance so many people here seem eager to defend.

The real enemy is fundamentalism... whether it be Muslim or Christian.

It makes no sense to be pissed at one religion for opposing your lifestyle yet defend the Muslim religion who also opposes not only the homosexual lifestyle but all lifestyles of civilized peoples.

There are 1'200'000'000 human beings who believe in the Islam. Most of the moslems are moderate moslems like most christians are moderate as well. And I can tell you that I have visited many Islam countries that have very high civilised lifestyles, culturally, personally and politically. In no way does the islam oppose to a civilised lifestile. Fundamental believes are doing this (christian and islam and other religions as well)

Unfortunately and sadly enough most religions have their problems with homosexuality. Sad and true but in no way exclusively in the islam.

Don't get me wrong. I abhor terrorist of every color. It's just the title of the post (all terrorists are muslims) that cannot stay undisputed.

My firm believe is, that we only are able to solve the problems of fundamental terrorism together;nations and religions. Terrorist are by definition a minority in every religion or Country.

I guess more than anything I am surprised at the support from this MB for an organized religion, I have never seen the same support for Christians or Christianity here, and I understand that.

I don't see any support for Islam here. Personally, I can't stand Islam and I've written about that before both here and in other places. It's a particularly obnoxious religion on par with Christianity. I dislike both Christianity and Islam with an equal intensity.

As for the individual adherents to these religious traditions, well I'll judge 'em on a case by case basis. I like being judgemental. It gives me a little tingle inside.

I do agree with you on one thing though, Jakey-Boy and that's Wikipedia. It's terrible and the people who contribute to it are weirdos. Without exception. The lot of 'em. I'm always disappointed when people cite Wikipedia as a source, authoritative or otherwise.